Dan Friesen and Jordan Holmes critique Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes, mocking his past dismissals as a "weird gay kid" or "fed." Fuentes’ media tour reveals strategic evasion of blaming Israel for Charlie Kirk’s murder, internalized racial grievances tied to rejection by Cassie Dillon and Ben Shapiro, and a white supremacist framework where Jewish identity is weaponized. While Carlson’s interview feels hollow—just brand rehabilitation—Fuentes’ audience thrives on his performative outrage, exposing how mainstream figures either fail to challenge or exploit extremism without addressing its core contradictions. [Automatically generated summary]
I think what it is, I'll tell you this: extreme crunch.
If you're a person who likes chews ice, if you're, you know, when you're drinking a soda and you crunch on the ice and it annoys people, if you're one of those people, grape nuts are fucking amazing.
So, first, shout out to Jesse and thank you for listening to this nonsense with me on day trips and also turning it down when we roll the window down so people don't think we're freaks.
Well, I will say that I don't think that any particular message from somebody has reached the level of technocrat, but collectively, the number of people who have tried to remind you to have a quote, full-on technocrats.
Here's what I want from this: I need you to become a TikTok coat influencer now, where sponsors send you coats, you wear them for like a second and go, hmm, and then put a new coat on.
So on the surface, there's no reason to do this interview.
And the choice tells me that Tucker is willing to make the bargain that comes along with buddying up with Nick.
He's made friends with and elevated the voice of a Nazi purity tester, a guy who will use his audience to launch online wars against right-wing media figures who are too lukewarm.
Over the past couple of weeks, Nick has been popping up more on shows that like to pretend that they're a bit closer to the mainstream, like Glenton Greenwald's show System Update and Patrick Bett David's podcast.
A lot of this has to do with the fallout of the Charlie Kirk murder and how figures on the extreme right wing have responded to it.
Anti-Semitic shit has become way more popular than it was a few years ago.
And with Elon taking over Twitter and throwing out all moderation standards, that type of content is so much more on the surface than it was, you know, just a number of years ago.
Being an ideologue is harder because sometimes you have to resist the easy move in order to stay true to a larger principle that you have.
Knee-jerk reactions get you an audience that's one knee-jerk away from abandoning you, and an ideologue has to consider that kind of danger.
I say all this because Nick Fuentes shocked the world when he resisted the urge to blame Israel for Charlie Kirk's murder.
This is notable since he hates Israel specifically and Jewish people generally, and because Nick rose to prominence by trying to destroy Charlie and Turning Point for not being anti-Semitic enough.
Put simply, this was a meatball being thrown right over home plate, and all Nick had to do was swing, and he was guaranteed a home run.
But he didn't.
And he even went so far as to criticize people for jumping to the conclusion that this was an Israeli hit job.
His reasons for staking this position make a lot of sense.
Charlie was a longtime supporter of Israel, and there's no conceivable reason why Israel would want to kill him.
Charlie's organization, Turning Point, is also largely pro-Israel, and he's closely entwined with the Trump administration, who have a mostly friendly position on Israel.
Killing Charlie makes no sense as a primary objective for Netanyahu to have, and it's a bad strategic move, even if it's just in terms of like you're doing an elaborate false flag to make him a martyr, because there's no guarantee that whoever takes over Turning Point would be as successful a communicator in the attention economy as Charlie.
Yeah, there's no situation where you're Israel and you kill Charlie Kirk that is winding up better than if you're Israel and Charlie Kirk just keeps doing the same thing he's doing.
Yeah, yeah, it makes sense why Nick would approach this with caution, but the ecosystem that his content lives in now has grown, and a lot of other pseudo-Nazis didn't have the same take that he did.
Because Nick was out there saying that he didn't think that Israel killed Charlie Kirk, a lot of folks in the right-wing media got the sense that he was changing his stance on Israel and Jewish people because everyone really understands who his criticisms aren't of Israel.
And he'd gotten some chatter that maybe Nick was warming up to Israel.
And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people didn't get that misconception.
In the attention economy that all these shitheads exist, there's no reason for Nick not to blame Israel.
It's the only position he could have that's in line with what they understand his brand to be.
So it's easy to see him not taking that easy position as him trying to indicate to the attention economy that he's willing to play ball.
Up to this point, it's easy to see him as a toxic entity who just hates Jewish people, has cultivated a large incel Nazi audience, and through that has built his own Kfabe.
So many of these other right-wing media figures, they've created their Kfabe off taking Nazi shit and repackaging it through plausibly deniable language.
But Nick's Kfabe works differently.
He doesn't need that plausible deniability.
So interacting with them forces them to shit or get off the pot.
Do you mean that Nazi shit you're winking about?
Or are you just a bunch of winks signifying nothing and you're just trying to scam Nazis?
He forces the issue in a way that a lot of them probably don't want.
The position that he was in whenever we last spoke about him, and I said something along the lines of like, I would like to, you know how they have those campaigns, right?
The pre-loaded things.
I don't want to do the stuff that it took to get to where he was a few months ago.
But a few months ago, where he was is positioned so well to do exactly what he is doing right now.
And he's doing it.
And it's fucking annoying because I could do it better.
But because of this, this sort of like breaking through the wink of plausible deniability, like Nick's proximity threatens to blow up plausible deniability.
Like most figures in this world, because of that, they're wise to just steer clear of him.
It's not worth it to crack the door because once you do, it's too late.
He's going to be in your house.
Nick taking the position that it probably wasn't Israel who killed Charlie Kirk has tricked a lot of right-wing figures into thinking that Nick has entered their game.
To be clear, it's not a case where all these right-wing figures are pro-Israel and now think that Nick is too, so it's cool to talk to him.
It's more that they believed him to be a blame Israel for everything pundit who is essentially crazy, almost compulsive in his hating of Israel and Jewish people.
By showing that he's not, Nick has made himself a more palatable guest option for some people who wouldn't have wanted to have him on before.
And it doesn't hurt that a lot of mainstream outlets have run breathless pieces about him like they did about Richard Spencer in 2016.
All hearts aflutter about the new clean-cut Nazi on the scene.
Nick's getting all that buzz, combined with his public fight with the knee-jerk Nazis about Israel killing Kirk has led to him becoming far less scary for someone to interview.
I mean, one thing that it should show beyond any reasonable doubt is that the people he is about to run roughshod over don't understand the even concept of ideological consistency.
It simply doesn't exist for them because they would never, it would never make sense for them for him to criticize or say it's not Israel because he's just a crazy guy who hates Israel, right?
The idea of it, though, is the reason that ideological consistency has an advantage is that once you get to the situation where you're talking to the Tuckers or these larger people, their waves are going to crash.
You know, you're actually consistent.
No matter what they do, it's going to look like shit compared to you.
Yeah, and like, well, not quite regular, but more of a white supremacist, maybe.
Sure.
But like, the, yeah, it's a weird thing to welcome for these folks.
You get, it's foolish.
So Nick's made the rounds, and it all culminated in an interview with Tucker Carlson, the guy who said that Nick was a weird gay kid in his parents' basement, the guy who said that Nick was a fed mere months ago.
And look, here's the bottom line of the whole thing.
It's not a meaningful interview.
Of course not.
It's kind of dull, and it almost has the vibe like Tucker isn't interested in challenging things Nick's saying.
Well, Nick is on his best behavior to come off as a normal, moderate type of guy to Tucker's audience.
Tucker apologizes for calling Nick a gay fed, and it all kind of just felt like a puff piece for Nick.
I intended to do an episode about the Tucker-Nick interview, but it was a snooze.
So what I'm going to do instead is present some bullet points from the various interviews that Nick's done on this media tour that I think are my main takeaways that I think are actually important.
So the first thing that I wanted to highlight is the different strategies that are used by different interviewers sitting down with Nick.
Each is looking for a different thing out of the exchange, and you can really see it and how they interact with him.
So first up, we have Gavin McGinnis, who has an angle that's the closest to what we've seen historically from Alex in terms of dealing with Nick.
Alex has tried over and over again to get Nick to just cool it on the anti-Semitism and start using coded language at this plausible deniability so you can better fit into the business model that Alex profits from.
On first glance, it could appear that this is what Gavin is doing too, but his angle is actually a little bit grosser.
His primary argument for Nick is that not all Jews are bad.
They both believe in white supremacy and wish to live in a country where all meaningful power is held by white men and think that their beliefs are based on the natural order of the world.
But they don't agree on whether or not Jewish people can be white.
In general, Gavin likes what Nick does.
He just wants to sand down some of these edges.
If he were sincere in this motivation, this would be a really stupid angle because Nick knows damn well that his edges are the reason he has an audience.
The day he decides to soften his position on Jewish people and say, okay, I guess right-wing Jews are pretty cool.
That's the day his audience decides he sold out to Israel and this whole fucking thing collapses.
And it is largely predicated on this idea of like, oh, I thought like because you didn't blame Israel for the Kirk assassination, I thought maybe we could get some business going together.
But again, part of this conversation even includes this underpinning of like, yes, you understand, I'm not hating all Jews because I think they're stupid.
I'm hating them because they're so smart, they can control the world.
Right?
Like, so if I'm thinking these people are so smart, why would I ascribe to them the dumbest possible shit?
Yeah.
Only if they're made up and stupid like your enemies.
Fans of our show will remember Patrick Bett David as the insurance multi-level marketing scam guy who started a YouTube channel and interviewed a very drunk Alex Jones in a hotel room in 2017.
So from there, he's become a big name in the dipshit right-wing media space, and he prides himself on being the kind of guy who'll have a conversation with anyone.
Everyone told him not to talk to Nick, and that just makes him want to talk to him more.
So PBD is a money maker, and that's like all his shit is really about.
Right-wing politics serves the interests of the people making massive amounts of money, and the right-wing audience is the easiest to make money off of, so it's a natural fit for him.
Pure and simple, PBD just thinks that there's money to be made off interviewing Nick, so he's doing it, and he gives zero shits about what he's presenting to the audience.
In the interview, Nick complains about how people called him a racist for a video clip that got posted some years back, where he says that people of different races having sex is degenerate in the same way that having sex with a dog might be degenerate.
Nick was saying that the intimacy that Patrick shares with his wife is an act of degeneracy.
Yep.
So PBD gives Nick all the opportunities to excuse his comments as youthful indiscretions that were unfortunately caught on camera.
But Nick doesn't really want to apologize for what he said, which leads to Patrick Bett David just directly asking him if he believes what he said in that clip.
Nick would have expressed his racism more mysteriously if he knew that someone was recording him, and he regrets that this boring, direct racist moment was caught on camera.
PBD's interview has a lot of this kind of where he wants to come off like a cool old-timer and cash in on whatever heat Nick has at the moment.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that this interview was released along with Nick becoming an expert who's available for consultation on Patrick's expert consultation website, Manect.
His interview unsurprisingly begins with connecting something from Nick's past to an issue that Glenn has defended over the years, and then it dives into some strong insinuations that the act of interviewing Nick reveals what a brave guy Glenn is.
But I do want to spend a little bit of time first on what seems to me to be the radically transformed trajectory of you as a person in our political discourse and our media ecosystem.
And I'll just share with you an anecdote.
I don't know if I ever told you this before, but I think the first time when I really paid attention to you, I think the first time when I really talked about you, it was like 2020.
You had tried to board a plane and found that you had been placed without any due process, any kind of notice on a government no-fly list.
And I was somebody who had spent, you know, many years in the war on terror denouncing the no-fly list for all of its authoritarian practices.
And I think I manifested publicly, you know, about why is it why is Nick Fuentes with no charges, no process, prohibited from flying?
I was deluged with people in email and DM, even phone calls, like major conservative figures, and not even like the super pro-establishment ones, even people who are kind of on the fringes of the more anti-saying, look, I'm warning you, don't have anything to do with Nick Fuentes.
He's bad news.
Don't talk about him.
Don't believe him.
There was really a very strong effort in the conservative movement to just make you disappear.
I was really surprised.
I don't think I ever got pushed back like that before.
And yet, here we are, you know, I guess just a few years later.
I've been watching your work for some time, and you definitely had a kind of gravity and even like a gravitas about the Charlie Kirk assassination and how you had to figure out how to talk about it afterwards, even taking a night off to kind of reflect on it that I hadn't quite seen from you before.
And I want to get into a little bit about why that was.
Before we do, just on this topic of the trajectory and what may be the evolution, you know, obviously you know that if I have you on my show or if anyone has you on their show, they're going to hear, you know, kind of the highlights or the lowlights, as it might be of Nick Funtes.
Like, here's what he said about black people, and here's what he said about Jews, and here's what he said about this group and that group and this group.
And because you're on the air a lot and because some of it is kind of an ironic humor that you have with your audience, which I think most people in real life is how they speak.
And part of the appeal, if you're doing well on the internet, is the fact that you are being a real person.
You're not presenting one fake artificial public face with a different private character like me.
I think that's given people in one way, that's been very good for you.
It's been part of your appeal, but another way, it's given people a very easy way to demonize and attack you by taking these quotes that can sound not just very racist, but very almost like Nazi-like and a kind of an extermination rhetoric.
They're foolish to do this, but at the same time, they're doing it for very different reasons and satisfying a need that they have that is other than Nick.
And I honestly, I'm not, I want to be clear that I'm not, I don't want to say like he has an ideology and he has a belief or whatever, because that sounds fairly complimentary.
There has been this kind of, I would almost say consensus among people on the right, certainly among your precinct of the right, and even a little bit, ones a little bit closer to the mainstream.
You heard J.D. Vance talking about this, that on some level, the kind of bugaboo right now of American politics are highly educated, metropolitan, liberal white women who are just kind of the bane of everybody's existence, who are the plight and plague on American politics.
These are the people responsible for so many of the worst political trends over the last 10 years, not just in terms of the ideas, but also how they're expressed, how the dialogue and discourse evolves.
And I know that's something that you've talked about.
I've heard you talk about white women in quite acrimonious ways, to be generous in terms of describing that.
So what about that?
What does that reflect?
I mean, these are white women, like hardcore white women, probably with a long history of white ancestry in the United States.
And yet there's so many other people who think like you, these are like the embodiment of the threats to the American way of life.
Well, I think in general, you're sort of conflating what is abstract versus what is real.
White women have liberal ideas, but they carry white genes.
And so white women have eggs that when fertilized by white men are going to create white babies.
And white men and white women have been doing this for thousands of years.
And continue producing a race, an ethnic group of people that look a certain way, act a certain way, speak a certain way.
And, you know, maybe this generation or a previous generation or, you know, some other generation might have had the wrong idea or an idea that is contrary to my ideas, but they still carry those genes.
They're still that distinct group of people.
I'm not going to say that I'm in favor of America becoming minority white because one black man has the right politics and most white women have the wrong politics in the current year in 2025.
Because, you know, all things being equal and kind of left in isolation in 100 years, those white women are going to ensure the continuation of people that look like me.
And those black people are going to have generation after generation of people that seem to be sort of set against us in a certain way.
There seems to always be they're advocating on behalf of their group insofar as they're a minority.
And we as whites are, in a sense, doing that also, implicitly or explicitly.
So I think maybe that's the conflation.
There might be liberal white women, but they're still white.
And I still think that white people should exist, even if there are a lot of liberal white people right now.
Because, you know, I'm white.
So that's maybe, because I was libertarian for many years.
And to me, that was kind of the big, that was the big inflection point for me is realizing that I'm part of a group that is going extinct and I don't want to go extinct.
All of your trappings, all of your greenwaldiness, all of your Patrick Bett David-ness, all of this is all made up to hide from yourself that you're just a piece of shit racist.
I don't have any clips of that show pulled because it was two and a quarter hours of nothing.
It wasn't interesting.
It didn't have any real revealing insights to it, like their different perspectives or anything.
Like it's not.
Unlike the other interviewers we've touched on, it doesn't feel like Tucker has much of a motive either.
Gavin wants Nick to see Jewish people as white.
Patrick Bett David wants to justify making money off Nick.
Glenn Greenwald wants to pat himself on the back for being the coolest boy in the room, but Tucker is just kind of hanging out with Nick.
And this is because there's a fundamental difference between those other three interviewers and Tucker.
The other three wanted to use Nick for clicks and didn't really care about what they were platforming along the way.
They didn't realize that Nick was using them and he had no interest in seeing Gavin's point or thinking that Glenn is one of the good homosexuals.
But Tucker's different.
Tucker had Nick on as an apology.
These two dudes have been fighting in a way that's been chaos in the right-wing media space.
They're both out there calling each other a fed and it's nasty for business.
Now that Charlie Kirk is dead, it's pretty hard not to accept that Nick is one of the, if not the actual largest figures in the right wing that has a solid connection with the youth.
And if you're old ass former bowtie Iraq war cheerleader Tucker, you'd be insane not to think that Nick could turn a large chunk of the impressionable young conservatives against you.
Tucker had Nick on so he could do brand rehabilitation with Nick's audience.
Tucker has over twice as many followers on Rumble, and yet the actively engaged viewer numbers are higher for Nick than him.
I believe that Tucker is scared of Nick, and he should be.
Letting him in the house is the wrong move, but that's only if you believe that Tucker doesn't actually want to be part of a white identity, pseudo-Nazi movement, and he does.
So letting Nick in, it really is just like, well, you got to deal with this guy now.
It is, it is like Because it's just what I don't, I don't understand these people on a fundamental level, unless you just take somebody who is like in the moment and incapable of learning.
Because they love going in places and wrecking people's shit.
And has cultivated his own like large audience, probably maybe larger than yours, that enjoys and will only put up with him as long as he's fucking shit up.
No, and it's, and it's like regardless, again, it's another one of those things where it's like, this is the difference between the past and the present.
In the past, that idea, oh, we have such a huge social media following is very important.
Now that you're in the present, though, you realize that's fucking stupid.
Those people aren't real.
If you have an engaged following of a solid number of people, you are stronger than a million Twitter followers.
So now there's a fascinating irony in all of these interviews, and that is that I think Patrick Bett David is the shallowest of any of these media figures.
But because he's unburdened by some other baggage when he's interviewing Nick, he actually manages to have the most interesting exchange with him.
He doesn't dig into any of the interesting points, but there's a couple things that become clear from their interview that I think look really bad for Nick.
So Nick is discussing his path towards being a white nationalist.
And a big moment in that story is him going to college and being scared to be around so many people he didn't see as white.
I know that Nick's a big boy media figure and all that, but it's also important to remember that he's describing a moment from when he was a scared 18-year-old living away from home for the first time.
When he got out into the world and discovered that it wasn't all like his mom's bosom, he was supposed to grow up.
This is a challenge of individuation where a child has to break free from the nest.
Not everyone does this by going off to college, but it's a common story in this country that this is where that test comes.
It's supposed to be a kind of scary thing to go to college because you're not living with your parents anymore.
And in theory, it's the first time in your life that you're truly responsible for yourself.
It's scary that your mom's bosom isn't the whole world and you can't derive the comfort of home from far-off places in the world.
But the lesson you're supposed to learn is that that's okay.
You're going to be okay.
And all the stuff out there in the real world isn't as scary as you think it is at first.
Instead of maturing through this challenge of life, Nick got mad and he demanded that everywhere in the world should be the same as his mom's bosom.
His hometown is 95% white and now he's in a diverse city like Boston.
So he thinks that the world should coddle him and cater to his need for there to be 95% white people around him so he feels safe.
He's mad that the world doesn't make him feel as safe as his childhood home did.
And because he has the validation of tons of racists online and he makes a bunch of money off it, there's no reason for him to ever feel the need to change this.
I don't want to infantilize Nick or anything, but this is baby stuff.
And if he wants to be taken seriously as a mature racist, he needs a better backstory than this.
So the second thing that becomes painfully clear in the Patrick Bett David interview is that Nick has based a lot of his political direction on rejection.
This isn't to say that he doesn't have some sincerely held and intellectually backed up arguments and talking points, but I'm saying that, you know, as he tells the story of his path to hating Jewish people, it becomes kind of obvious that a bunch of it is spite.
It might have been going in that direction, but no, nothing like that materialized.
So, yeah, we were just friends.
And I started to notice something was up because Trump's doctrine was America first.
And that was so attractive to me.
He said, we will no longer be misled by the siren song of globalism.
It's going to be Americanism, not globalism.
And that really sunk into me.
And I'll never forget, this was in December 2016.
This is what did it for me.
And I wrote an article about it on my blog.
I had a blog at that time.
And I noticed that Obama, who was still the president during the lame duck period, he told our ambassador to the United Nations not to veto a resolution condemning the West Bank settlements.
So there's a resolution saying Israel's settlements in the West Bank are illegal.
Normally, the United States vetoes that on behalf of Israel to protect them.
But Obama instructed our ambassador to abstain.
And so the resolution went through.
And everybody on the right wing said Obama's an anti-Semite.
He hates Jews because he did that.
And I said, wait a second.
I went through and I did the research and I said, ever since 1967, during the Six-Day War, when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it has been the official U.S. policy that we do not support the civilian settlements.
That's technically illegal under international law.
I said, so all Obama did was really uphold the same policy that every president did, Republican and Democrat, yet they're calling him a Jew hater.
I said, I don't think Obama hates Jews.
Obama's supported by the Jewish left.
People like Saul Alinsky mentored him or influenced him.
So I don't think he hates Jews.
I think that he's just carrying out our policy.
And so I said, how is that any different than when, let's say, a conservative critiques BLM?
She rightly assessed that his criticisms of Israel were an outlet for an anti-Semitic belief system, and she cut him out of her life.
This is what Nick's mind goes to first when he's talking about his evolution as an anti-Israel person.
Again, I don't want to infantilize this guy, but any adult should listen to that story and recognize that this was a kid who had feelings for someone that probably weren't requited.
He was weird, and she told him to get lost.
This is another rite of passage that's part of maturing into a full-on adult.
And when Nick hits these crossroads, he refuses to engage with the lessons that he should be learning.
And instead, he just becomes kind of an obsessive creep and blames somebody else.
I was honestly just shocked because, you know, the idea on the right wing is we're the marketplace of ideas.
And so nothing's off limits.
And you're supposed to bring your best ideas and you debate them out.
That's the whole program.
And so to get such a cold and frosty response, it was actually a little disturbing because it's like, you know, I slept over at her sister's apartment.
I went to her Christmas party.
We hung out.
We disagree on this issue, which, by the way, isn't even an American issue.
It's not like we had a falling out because I became some communist or anything to do with America.
It's because I didn't support a foreign country.
And I said, you know, even if we disagree on the issue, we can't even talk to each other or be friends personally.
Forget about even professionally working together.
I was stunned at how she turned into like, there was like this transformation.
And then I got angry.
And I would talk about this on my show.
I would, I would kind of go on the show and it made me lean into the issue because I said, clearly something is here.
Like it's being treated differently than other issues.
Instead of moving along and letting it go, recognizing that not all relationships are meant to last and not all relationships can be the type of relationship you want them to be, Nick clearly just decided to obsess about this woman, this issue.
And he goes on to blame her for all kinds of attacks and attempted cancellations, even in this interview with Patrick Bett David, years later.
And then it was a couple months later that the first hit piece ever was written about me by Media Matters.
And I strongly believe, and I believe there was evidence for this at one point, that she sent in a clip from my show to Media Matters for America, left-wing organization.
I don't know if you're doing it because you're trying to get under people's skin if you fully believe it or you're trolling.
I don't know.
It could be any of those things.
Only you know what you're doing at that time when you're making certain comments.
But what is the most vile, extreme thing that some people may say you've said up until that point that's causing Cassie to message Media Matters and others saying, you have to see what this guy's saying?
So this woman that he had a crush on forwarded his stuff to Ben Shapiro, who looked at it and didn't want anything to do with Nick.
On multiple occasions throughout these interviews, Nick talks about how Shapiro was going to take him under his wing.
He uses that language, but then he decided that Nick was an anti-Semite.
It clearly really hurt him, and that makes sense.
In the same way that going off to college and having a romantic interest reject you, those are growing experiences in life that suck.
So is professional failure.
But all of these things are a part of life.
And instead of encountering these things and rising to the challenges they represent, Nick just got angry and took to whining about how all these sucky life experiences just happened to him because of the Jews.
These inflection points that he's telling Patrick Bat David about make total sense.
It's just that Nick refuses to accept that he had some growing up to do after he put on a MAGA hat at like age 17.
Growing up is for soy boys and cucks because accepting the responsibility and the possibility that the world is bigger than what makes you comfortable is woke bullshit.
Nick didn't grow through these life changes and instead he just became an ideologue against the group that he's chosen to blame for all of it.
I think it's more like he has that, whatever this pain is, has become the outlet is just hate and all this shit and anti-Semitism and racism and white identity.
And for a lot of other people, it's a costume that they wear.
But for him, I think he would actually need help to stop.
And he's a piece of shit and I don't give a fuck about him.
And like I said, I don't want to infantilize him.
No.
But like it's embarrassing to hear adults like Patrick Bett David listen to this guy tell this story and not like have the response of like, what the fuck's wrong with you?
Go to college.
Have some tough experiences.
Take a couple bumps.
You know, like you're gonna, that's what's gonna happen in life.
You can't be fucking comfortable around white people all the fucking time and expect the world to just exist like that.
The world doesn't conform to your Nazi fantasies and trying to force it to has created the like the way people respond to Nick is a function of him wanting the world to all be his 95% white hometown.
They're reacting to what he's putting into the world.
Yeah, I mean, Ben Chamiro, when he only has a thousand followers, you know, there's a chance at every step of the way, but these people created him out of all of this bullshit.
Anyway, the biggest irony here, I think, is that at this point, Nick stands to lose way more by being on Tucker's show than Tucker does from having Nick on.
Tucker could interview Goebbels, and it would be like a barely, it would barely matter.
Yeah, because it's the least interesting part of this entire thing.
And granted, these other interviews happened over the last span of weeks, but I do think that the headline event is Nick and Tucker doing a friendly interview after they've been trying to destroy each other.
Right.
It's just a comic who has a great set and a horrible closer.